Leaderboard

I like Reines's style. He was the one who excoriated CNN over the ambassador's-diary flap, which is what this email interview initiated by the BuzzFeed reporter is also about. BuzzFeed published the entire exchange: On Sunday morning, BuzzFeed correspondent Michael Hastings emailed Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton's longtime aide and personal spokesman at the State Department, asking a series of pointed questions about State's handling of the Benghazi fiasco, and Reines' over-the-top attack on CNN. The emails quickly got personal, with Reines calling Hastings an "unmitigated asshole" before an exchange of harsh words on both sides. The email chain concluded with Reines writing that Hastings should "Fuck Off" and "Have a good life." The full exchange (with one typo fixed) is below. From: Michael Hastings 
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:32 AM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
 Subject: Request for comment 

Hey Philippe: A few quick questions for you. Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they've been attacked? Let me know if you have a second.Michael ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
 Good morning Michael I'm adding my colleague Toria Nuland who I believe you know. She has addressed much of your questions below during her daily press briefings, so I'll let her weigh in to remind you of what's already been thoroughly answered. As far as the tone of my email, I think you're misreading mine as much as I'm misreading yours as being needlessly antagonistic. But on your questions pertaining to CNN's handling of the diary: • You know that all USG personnel were evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. So I'm not sure why you're asking why State didn't find the diary first. • On material, I'll let Toria reiterate, but the answer is no. Though you might want to ask CNN if they took anything else from the crime scene that they haven't yet told anyone about. • In terms of the media's responsibility, I'll start with the outlandish statement that I believe the media does have responsibilities. Your question seems to imply they have none and any expectation of responsible behavior is too much to ask. To be specific:I believe CNN had the responsibility to act as human beings and be sensitive to their loss when they first approached the family. I believe CNN had a responsibility to not make promises to the family it would not keep. If that's too much to ask, I believe CNN had at the very least a responsibility to make their intentions on the use of Chris's diary clear to the family from the outset. I believe CNN had a responsibility to not deceive its own viewers for more than 48 hours on the source of their reporting, using convoluted attribution they themselves had to clarify, before admitting it was the diary they were relying on. I believe that when they finally did admit to using Chris's diary, they had a responsibility to their viewers and to the family to explain why they broke their pledge. I believe that many within CNN agree with everything I'm saying. More than anything else, I believe that CNN - since they had already read every word of the diary before calling the family on Friday the 14th, the day Chris's remains were returned home - had all the information they needed at that point to make an editorial decision on whether the contents of the diary compelled them to report on it. I believe the time to invoke their standards to justify using the diary came six days late. I believe that CNN, if they felt strongly that they had an obligation to use the diary should never have presented the family with a choice in the first place that they'd later disregard. I don't believe that CNN should get credit for issuing a flimsy confession only when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I believe the statement CNN issued late last night, 24 hours after Anderson Cooper's ill-conceived statement on air, basically says they agreed not to use it until they didn't feel like it anymore, and only admitted to it when they were about to be caught. I don't believe that's much of a profile in courage. Lastly, I believe that you of all people, after famously being accused of violating agreed upon ground rules and questionable sourcing, would agree that it's important for a news organization to maintain its own integrity if it is to be trusted. That begins with keeping its word. If you can't manage that, then don't give it. 
I realize that the way this works is that you only you get to ask me questions, but I have one for you: if you were in Benghazi, went to the scene of the attack, found the ambassador's diary, read every word of it, would you have called them and asked their permission to use it, then when you weren't granted that permission agree that you wouldn't use it in any way, and then a few days later just change your mind? If the answer is yes, then you obviously agree that CNN handled this perfectly fine. If the answer is no, if you would have decided its contents demanded reporting immediately, how would you have handled this differently then CNN? And you should feel free to use every word above, in its entirety. Though I suspect you won't. Philippe ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:04 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment Philippe: Thanks for getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly--I found your statement to CNN offensive. From my perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the Ambassador's diary--and who knows what else--was left behind for anyone to pick up. Thankfully, it was CNN--and not Al Qaeda or some other militia--that found it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the material in the diary they found at the scene--material that appears to contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting out--is completely in line with practices of good journalism. I don't know how involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it's worth, Arwa is one of the best war correspondents working today. She's consistently risked her life to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it's unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN. The misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren't doing their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of cover-up--whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or just the trauma of losing four good men, it's hard for me to say at this point.
 All the best, 
Michael ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote: 
Why do you bother to ask questions you've already decided you know the answers to? ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:50 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment 

 Why don't you give answers that aren't bullshit for a change? ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
 I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole. How's that for a non-bullshit response? Now that we've gotten that out of our systems, have a good day. And by good day, I mean Fuck Off ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 01:40 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment Hah--I now understand what women say about you, too! Any new complaints against you lately? ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote: 
Talk about bullshit - answer me this: Do you only traffic in lies, or are you on the ground floor of creating them? And since Fuck Off wasn't clear enough, I'm done with you. Inside of 5 minutes when I can log into my desktop, you'll be designated as Junk Mail. Have a good life Michael. ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings 
 Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM
 Subject: Re: Request for comment 
To: "Reines, Philippe I" 
Cc: "Nuland, Victoria J"
 I'll take that as a non-denial denial. All the best, Michael http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/hillary-clinton-aide-tells-reporter-to-fuck-off

"I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole." Ahahahahahahahaha...

Guess BuzzFeed does have its uses... 20 Bizarre Examples Of Medieval Marginalia Yo, medieval scribes: no one's going to read the text you so painstakingly lettered if you continue to draw weird and dirty pictures in the margins. Well, I guess you're all dead, so we can't fix this now, can we? Baby Praying Mantis top10 Community Contributor 1. A penis tree From a 14th century copy of Romance of the Rose. Source: culture-et-debats.over-blog.com / via: gotmedieval.com 2. A monkey with an arrow stuck in its butt From Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 520. Source: gotmedieval.com / via: gotmedieval.com 3. Ass arrows, again From the Rutland Psalter, c. 1260. Via: laphamsquarterly.org 4. An inappropriate rabbit From Breviary, Use of Verdun c. 1302-1305. Source: http://25.media.tumb...pc0go1_1280.jpg / via: kardiologn.livejournal.com 5. Another inappropriate rabbit From Bodleian Library’s MS Douce 5. Source: gotmedieval.com / via: bigshoediaries.blogspot.com 6. This obviously boneless individual Source: tonyynot / via: mediumaevum 7. An ape bludgeoning a man with an axe Via: mediumaevum 8. Whatever's going on here Via: janiek.wordpress.com 9. Creative, naked nose picking? From Book of Hours, Walters Manuscript W.102, fol. 92v. Source: farm9.staticflickr.com / via: medmss 10. A man voiding his bowels Via: andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com 11. An amputee brawl From Bodleian Alexander (MS Bodl. 264). Source: gotmedieval.com / via: gotmedieval.com 12. Ape sodomy From Bodleian MS Douce 6. Source: gotmedieval.com / via: gotmedieval.com 13. The guy on the left From The Vows of the Peacock c. 1350. Source: img.gawkerassets.com / via: io9.com 14. Ass trumpets From The Vows of the Peacock c. 1350. Via: io9.com 15. Man riding a head toward a naked woman Via: janiek.wordpress.com 16. Hellbarrows From The Taymouth Hours. Source: 2.bp.blogspot.com / via: gotmedieval.com 17. Nom nom nom From The Taymouth Hours. Source: 2.bp.blogspot.com / via: gotmedieval.com 18. THIS GUY From Codex, with gloss of Accursius, MS Canon. Misc. 495. Source: tinyurl.com / via: bodleian.ox.ac.uk 19. Babies torturing a naked man From Breviary, Carthusian use. MS. Canon. Liturg. 410. Source: tinyurl.com / via: bodleian.ox.ac.uk 20. A snake man playing the bagpipes with his anus From Pierpont Morgan Library’s MS G24. Source: gotmedieval.com LINK: For more amazing marginalia, check out Got Medieval. gotmedieval.com

thank you! could you describe the massage?

And this one they will be able to blame on the Jews. Oy vay.

Would be hard to make this stuff up... http://www.nationalmemo.com/putin-thanks-romney-for-reckless-remarks/

I went to Hero Massage today. Hero is my favorite massage place in Bangkok and normally has about 40 or more guys to choose from. You choose the guy and they take you to a room and give you a great massage. Fee for room is 600 baht and the tip for the boy is minimum 1,000 baht (30 USD). My normal guy was not there today and neither were a few other lads I know so I tried Jom. He is nice guy with funny personality and good strong massage (maybe too strong for me). So, here is boytoy 2!

Thanks guys! Lurker, I can't post more provocative photos. Sorry. The laws in Thailand are very strict and I have never once taken a nude image here. It is just not worth the risk for me. That said, he was cuter naked than he was clothed.

Be sure to go over all the photos and "like" the ones you think are great. Remember, like in the upcoming election, if you don't vote, you can't complain when the winner is announced. So, lets get out the vote!

While the OP's post focused more on the friends and families of addicts, this Time article focuses more on the process of addiction itself. Not too surprisingly, the brain plays a major part in both the process of becoming addicted and perhaps one day in the process of managing the addiction. Also not too surprisingly, there seem to be as many subtleties in addictions themselves as there are subtleties in the brains of different folks and in the substances and behaviors to which they become addicted. And, once again, black or white thinking is not likely to capture the full range of behaviors that may, or may not, define an addiction. "Addictions," says Joseph Frascella, director of the division of clinical neuroscience at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), "are repetitive behaviors in the face of negative consequences, the desire to continue something you know is bad for you." One can easily find a range in the individual meanings of "repetitive behaviors", "negative consequences", "desire", and "bad for you". And there's certainly a range in the workings of the individual parts of the brain responsible for forming an addiction, as well as in the various substances and behaviors that can lead to an addiction. So it's no surprise, to me anyway, that many of us can see ourselves as addicts when the lower boundaries of the ranges are applied and that few of us may see ourselves as addicts when the upper boundaries of the ranges are applied. What was a surprise, again possibly only to me, was the level of understanding that was in place, even five years ago when the article was written, about the way the various parts of the brain interact and change in the development of an addiction and the possibility that some, though not all, of these interactions and changes may be one day be reversed. If I had known a half-century ago how strong a hold nicotine would have on me, I'd never have started smoking in the first place. Same with caffeine. But I didn't. So I began using both, and went through near-torture to finally quit. And, had I known many years ago how strong a hold an anonymous message board would have on me, I wonder if I'd have started posting in the first place. Oh, probably. I'm sure I can give it up any time I like.

thank you so much for sharing the pictures and experiences! enjoy your stay there and the boys!

I am eagerly awaiting this Campy Dramedy....Seems like it will be fun, afterall WHO doesnt love glitter and feathers ?